• Franklin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s just it though. One does more damage than the other unless you alone are single-handedly going to overthrow capitalism within the next week (which you know more power to you) this is still harm reduction and I’m happy for it.

    Otherwise you just bitching about best case scenarios and living in a world that exists only in your head

    • June@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re discussing nuance for a company you like when what I being discussed I the baseline problematic nature of commerce.

      Is fair phone a better alternative? Yes, and I’ve said as much.

      Is it ultimately different from apple in its goal to be profitable? No.

      Both things exist and that’s ok.

      • Franklin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know if your purposely misunderstanding me or if I’m not explaining myself well but give it one last time and then just agreed to disagree.

        Fairphone a company I don’t even particularly like uses less rare metals, in factories that ensure better standards of living for the people who work there.

        Is it everything I want? No. Does it make a measurable impact? Yes.

        Therefore it is not the same. they may be a capitalist company and they could change their motto tomorrow of course any company can choose to do terrible things and may throughout the course of their company’s lifetime.

        As of right now with the options we have they physically do less harm.

        • June@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We’re saying the same thing. I’m just emphasizing that they’re still capitalists who will make decisions based on profitability before social impact. It’s inherent because without profitability they can’t exist. Their stated mission (from a quick google) is to be profitable while making a positive impact.

          They won’t abandon profitability for impact.

      • franklin@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t even particularly like them I just think they’re an example of harm reduction.

        You are saying they do exactly the same damage and that is just not true. No they are not morally ethical but they do do less harm and that’s just a fact.